Slashdot Mirror
MP3tunes Offers Music Service Without DRM
ThinSkin writes "Former MP3.com chief and Lindows CEO Michael Robertson will reenter the music world next week with MP3tunes, a service that promises music without DRM restrictions. MP3tunes hopes to attract users who are fed up with restrictions on copying music from sites that use digital-rights-management techniques, such as iTunes."
I can't wait to download normal music that normal people actually want from the five major US record labels!
*Cough*
Anyone can do music without DRM.
Can they do music people want?
Spare me the arguments about how "it's not really what people want" because it's force-fed by Clear Channel, the labels, and a corrupt industry, and people just *think* they want it. Believe it or not, some artists on major labels have talent. Some don't. *Gasp!* Some completely unknown, independent artists may have talent, but might never have that talent shaped as well as it could be in the hands of professionals - and by "professionals", I don't mean music industry shills, I mean people who have done this for ages. Perhaps there are some bands out there who have the musical talent, business prowess, and personal presence to pull it off themselves. And maybe you think Open Source and "music/information wants to be free" socialistic type ideas - not using that in the pejorative sense - is the way to go. Fine. But the fact of the matter is that the MAJOR labels will demand DRM, unless one of them rolls (very unlikely), or a new paradigm takes over. Sure, maybe a DRMless music store will be part of that new paradigm. But at least realize that the vast majority of people won't give a shit about the vast majority of music on a DRMless service.
Do any of us like or want DRM? Hell no. But some of us realize that it's an extremely imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem. And, right or wrong, it's frankly their content to protect and do with as they see fit, as recognized under our system of laws as set forth by our elected officials, regardless of whose pockets you think they're in. If you are the ultimate cynic, and think everything is shot as it is, then you'll likely not understand any of this at all, or the fundamental desire of people to protect and secure their property or things they have invested in, no matter how unbalanced YOU might think it seems. But no one is forcing you to buy or listen to major label music. No one is forcing to you buy an iPod or use iTunes. Perhaps some of you put your money where your mouth is, but most of you are hypocrites. And the worst among you are those who think you can steal things who don't belong to you. And yes, it is stealing. An apt excerpt:
[...] different types of stealing are covered by different laws because they differ in the details. Theft through breaking and entering: burglary. Theft from one's employer: embezzlement. Theft by committing fraud through the mail: the aptly named mail fraud. Theft by the unlawful copying of somebody else's property: copyright infringement.
And the "deprivation" argument is pure shit, so don't even go there.
I wish them luck. I really do. I'd love to have no DRM on all of my video, television, movies, music, and be able to use things I *bought* any way I see fit on any device at any time. No broadcast flag, no forced no-commercial-skip, no DRM.
But I'm also practical.
That, and not a, you know, moron.
.88 per track or 8.80 per album
But will they offer OGG/Vorbis downloads? Seriously, I bought the most expensive mp3 player around so I could listen to my extensive, legal music collection in Vorbis. I don't want to spend my time writing a shell script to convert my mp3s to Vorbis, so is there any chance of MP3Tunes offerning OGG downloads? BTW, I had a Vorbis listening party the other night, and I invited all my female friends [robots] to listen. They all noticed the difference between my 128kB/s OGG files and my 64kB/s MP3 files. Up with OGG/Vorbis!
I, for one, would use this. I hope we can prove that it's a successful idea to have a service which actually puts the trust back in the customer rather than treating them as potential criminals.
I like many others are happy to pay for music, its just there's no way I can BUY music online that isn't crippled. I'd rather buy a CD and rip it.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
The loss of MP3.com left a gaping hole. Glad to see it's creator "reload".
Can't this guy name a product without ripping off some other product?
Finally! Nice to see a bigname in online music stepping up and trying to do something without DRM
"I think the labels are interested in one thing: selling," but where did he come up with some a novel concept? Big Music is interested in selling? And here I was thinking they were only interested in being evil.
this plan may attract a lot of people but can it obtain (and most imporantly: hold on to) enough $$$ to keep it running?
remember those car insurance companies that used the sales pitch "we will give you our quote and of 3 other competitors" ? yea, it may get you attention, but ultimately, how likely are you to break even?
not that i'm complaining, i'd love to be able to (somewhat cheaply) buy music and *keep* it.
This sig contains repetition and redundancy.
Since just about every song anybody would want that is available on most pay services is also on P2P networks, what's the harm of removing DRM? People pay these sites for convenience. All these songs are available elsewhere, but it's more difficult to find and download all the songs on an album on edonkey or kazaa. So all they are doing is annoying their customers, since even if these songs did make it on a P2P network, it wouldn't make much of a difference.
So services like this that sell songs without DRM shouldn't be a threat to the industry.
Which recording labels are going to sign on with this service? What good is an online music store going to be if a large percentage of the major record labels decline to participate because of the lack of DRM?
If DRM upsets you that much, you can get a wav/mp3 writer plugin for your audio player and roll your own DRMless copy. If this isn't possible with your media player, I'm sure there are special drivers and tools out there (you know, like Windows Sound Recorder).
I swear, people are never satisfied. Apple is doing a great thing, but people will always find something to complain about.
I am not worried about how much the company will charge for the songs. I am worried about how much the RIAA could sue me for
Honestly, I can't see most people caring enough about DRM to leave one service that uses one application to encompass the buying, listening, streaming and loading experience.
Sorry. I just don't see it. iTunes is doing better than ever, and may well have reached critical mass by this point. I've never hearde one person complain about the DRM - except here on Slashdot.
I think he's probably right, but I wonder if the bigwigs at the record labels are willing (or even care) to listen to his argument. It's not as if Apple didn't try:
I think the general consensus is that even though Jobs and his "Ph.D.s" knew DRM is always crackable, Apple still needed to implement some form of DRM in order to convince the record labels to open their catalogs. For the record companies in April of 2003, ever chary of the Internet, DRM was non-negotiable.
My question is: what's changed since then that would cause them to reconsider? After all, iTunes has shown that a service offering DRM tracks can be wildly successful. So why would the record labels want to open their catalogs to a DRM-free solution from some dude who made his name pawning a Linux desktop?
Anyway, this is definitely something to watch. I sincerely wish him luck. I just hope he can get the labels to open their catalogs.
MP3tunes will use a service or tool called "MP3beamer", which Robertson said would reconcile the need to store music in a centralized file store with the ability to play back the music anywhere, on any device. He declined to comment further.
(From TFA, for those who didn't R it)
If this service stores music somewhere you must somehow log into, and does not -upload to you- a DRM-free MP3, this service is NOT free of DRM, just using a different version of it.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
This is not a new concept. It's already alive and well over at emusic.com. The selection is not great, but you get 50 to 80 high-quality MP3's with NO DRM for a flat monthly fee.
MP3tunes will use a service or tool called "MP3beamer", which Robertson said would reconcile the need to store music in a centralized file store with the ability to play back the music anywhere, on any device.
Any ideas what this might be? Google isn't very forthcoming, as I suspect there's little info available as yet. If it's a "required" (aka installed) program, will it:
Just curious.
I would guess that there about 50,000 regular readers of slashdot. Out of those, probably about 1,000 post regulary, 5,000 semi-regulary. I figure anyone who doesn't post isn't motivated enough to get in the fray to even care about DRM. So, of those 6,000 roughly half care about DRM. Of those 3,000 maybe 1,000 won't use anything with DRM. So - boom - 1,000 customers right off the top. Of the remaining 2,000 who care about DRM, let's be generous, and give this new service half of them. Ok. So we can see that worldwide marketshare for this service is roughly 2000. But, according to recent Slashdot surveys, some 80% of slashdot readers are unemployed and thus have no money to buy music (which is why they steal it.) Anyway, this reduces the marketshare to about 400 individuals. So, unless the are charging $1000 per song, this endevour will go under in just a few months (unless the have venture, then I give it a year.)
I also read that music bought from the Apple Music Store gives even LESS money to the artist. $16 cds only give $1 or less to the artist, and many times it is worse than that.
So here is my situation. I have been reading about the RIAA and how it screws over artists, and hey, I don't want to support that! Instead of paying them my money, I get music for free until they go under. Then a better system can take over.
http://www.downhillbattle.org/ is what really pushed me over. Check out their posters, I have them all over my walls. http://www.downhillbattle.org/flyers/?PHPSESSID=72 5ad2c3bab3c780a7721fc58a54177c
until someone sues this guy for NOT implementing DRM on his download site.
3... 2... 1...
I think its time the mainstream manufactured music industry faced up to the music: they're selling a commodity! all their songs are practically interchangable - even manure is a more demanding and specialised market. They might as well dump the crap out like this and just charge for bandwidth and high-quality compression.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Everybody wants to take a shot at Apple - yeah right dream on dude. People pay for iTunes and iPods because of a name - it don't matter whether it's DRM'ed or not - it's Apple and iTunes and that's what people know.
I wish more music services would follow this example.
Of course, I also wish every music site out there used their pay by the megabyte approach, at ridiculously low rates. I actually end up spending much more on music, because I'm not afraid to waste a dollar getting a few new albums. It's proof that cheap, DRM-free online distribution can work.
It appears that supply and demand had worked. Someone has made an attempt to tap into the (more informed) market. The market which would rather not have a stranglehold DRM file. I for one prefer CD's, though my interest in music has been tainted by the greedy attitude of the RIAA.
I dont know how to say it in russian, but for the price i dont care!
It's not as though emusic.com didn't already do this...
...at 25 cents a track. It's mostly older alternative stuff but I find enough worthwhile tracks a month to make it useful.
The meme police, They live inside of my head
The question is what record companies and artists are going to allow their catalogues or any part thereof to be distributed through this service. If it's too stunted a catalogue then it's going to fail, but I just can't believe RIAA members are going to let non-DRM files be distributed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"I'd love to have no DRM on all of my video, television, movies, music, and be able to use things I *bought* any way I see fit on any device at any time. No broadcast flag, no forced no-commercial-skip, no DRM."
Can't help you much on the other stuff, but if you buy music on CD's, you can use it however, whereever, and whenever you'd like.
If you buy them used or in record clubs (http://www.bmgmusic.com), its cheaper than DRM'd music, too.
And that is a perfectly acceptable position.
And one that is at least logically consistent with your beliefs and ideals.
Former MP3.com chief and Lindows CEO Michael Robertson reentered the music world last week with MP3tunes, a service that promised music without DRM restrictions.
While MP3tunes hoped to attract users who were fed up with restrictions on DRM crippled music, it also attracted dozens of lawyers.
In an unprecedented move, 16 labels sued the company today in court, claiming that the company violated antitrust laws by allowing the distribution of "all music not controled by the label cartel"
When asked to comment, James Hetfield of Metallica cried out, "The labels are the only ones who can fight the onslaught of rampant piracy!" before chanting "Artists must eat!" until he left in his 2005 Dodge Viper.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
It's called magnatune and I've been shopping there for months.
How long until Michael offers us "mp3 lockers" so he doesn't even have to pay his own artists for downloads anymore?
"I swear, people are never satisfied. Apple is doing a great thing, but people will always find something to complain about."
/. and tell us that a G4 is fast enough for you.
Congrats. You've managed to state stupid apple fanboi reason #1 without a hint of irony or sarcasm.
You're serious.
Therefore, you win this week's Apple Fanboi of the Week award.
This entitles you to pick the Powerbook of your choice, pay full price, and then you get to come on
I'm sure this will start out with indie music, but that's my preferred music anyway. If Robertson is as successful as he was with MP3.com, he'll get enough traffic to force the majors to pay attention.
The secret to MP3.com was tapping into the thousands of indie artists. Even though many feel that you need to have the major label content to have a successful music site, MP3.com proved that not to be the case. There are just so many more indie artists (hundreds of thousands), that they can be a huge force to bring traffic to a site.
I expect you'll see Robertson take the best of MP3.com and combine it with the iTunes ecomm model, and it could be a big winner!
Hans
MP3tunes hopes to attract users who are fed up with restrictions on copying music from sites that use digital-rights-management techniques, such as iTunes.
Is this the windows portion of iTunes users they are trying to attract? You just know mac users won't drink any other Kool aid?
Btw, I'm a mac user with a sense of humour.
Jonathanjk.com
It's not OK to steal US content in Russia, even if you pay someone for it.
Russian copyright law loopholes make this site possible, but just because you pay to download music from them doesn't make your possession of the music legal.
MP3tunes will use a service or tool called "MP3beamer", which Robertson said would reconcile the need to store music in a centralized file store with the ability to play back the music anywhere, on any device. He declined to comment further.
Is it just me, or does this sound almost exactly like the last thing he tried before he founded Lindows-- remember, my.mp3.com? And if I remember correctly, in the end that one shut down because the courts decided that never mind all that stuff we said in the early 20th century, you don't have first sale rights of all. I have to wonder if this new thingy will in some way meet the same fate.
Well, at least he's a hero in my book for trying.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
It's proof that cheap, DRM-free online distribution can work./i.
Yeah, and screw all the artist out of their money. AllOfMP3 is a loop-hole that allows the russians that run the site to make money, and just about no one else.
In an unprecedented move, 16 labels sued the company today in court, claiming that the company violated antitrust laws by allowing the distribution of "all music not controled by the label cartel"
Unfortunately, the events of your satiric story are plausible. Instead of the record labels, it would be the music publishers, claiming that independent recordings are unauthorized covers of commercial songs. A music publisher even sued an artist over "subconscious copying" and won. In fact, with the finite number of possible melodies in the Western musical scale, we're bound to reach a point where nobody outside the music publishing cartel can compose and publish music at all. Then we get into this situation, which will make you think differently about Febreze Scentstories.
MP3tunes is a little less "confusingly similar" than it would be if he called it iTones...
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Run a comments search of /. on AllofMp3:r y=allofmp3& author=&sort=1&op=comments
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=&que
- Have you ever noticed that the more you learn about technology, the more stupid you sound trying to explain it?
Currently my wife (iPod + 20" iMac) and my daughter (Windows + Yep) are both buying music from iTunes and swapping music lists with each other.
They had one little blip the first time and they figured out how to register it to the other computer in about 20 seconds -- I didn't even get involved!
What if we think those bands you mentioned suck? :P
Sometimes these "indy artists" are down there for a reason - they just lack any sort of mass appeal and don't do well outside of a niche market.
Considering that most major labels are owned by one of four media companies, all which LOVE drm... I doubt MP3Tunes will take off.
Sure, they might get a real musician or band every once and a while... but I can't see this model becoming successful.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Specifically: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126473&cid=105 91752
- Have you ever noticed that the more you learn about technology, the more stupid you sound trying to explain it?
Here I am reading an article about my former CEO when I stumble upon this line:
At the show, two of Robertson's engineers at MP3.com will introduce SwitchVox, which will
combine PBX features with VOIP...
Oh crap that's me! Yeah, we have a fancy-pants gui front-end to asterisk. At the risk of further slashdotting ourselves, here's the site: http://www.switchvox.com.
Now to go find some bandwidth.
192kbps MP3 encoded with LAME is a waste of bits.
If you're not encoding witn "--alt-preset standard" you're missing out.
LAME 3.90.3 that is. They really lost their way and stopped paying attention to the quality of their encoder's results after then.
AND THAT'S assuming you are using a proper tool to rip your CDs. GIGO. EAC is a proper tool.
"what's changed since then that would cause them to reconsider?"
Let me speculate.
1) As much as we think the RIAA member are "stupid" and "don't get it", they're not that dumb. They understand that the minimal DRM in iTMS is token at best. [which is why I laugh at fanatics who say "....ooooh, HYMN is bad because if the record companies find out, they'll shut down iTMS!...."]
2) If I was a record company, I wouldn't be too worried about 128kb MP3's. The quality is only marginally better than FM in practice, and so they know they can sell it to us again and again. [which is why they don't want us to own lossless or 320kb MP3's]
So that's my guess.
Ya know what? Everyone loves to bash allofmp3.com bc it's Russian and shady. Well ... so what. You want shady? The US firms are a legal mafia outfit. Think about it. They control all avenues worth controlling (radio, advertising, production, etc.) and if you start to encroach on them they make you an offer you can't refuse. Either they buy you out, sue you into oblivion, or both (think mp3.com).
Aside from that I read on their site that some money actually does go to the artist. Not much, and I have no way of verifying that, but take a wild guess how much of that is *my* problem. There are middlemen taking a cut here and in Russia, the difference is here they take a bigger cut and the listener gets screwed worse, whereas the Russians take a smaller cut and the artist gets screwed worse. Take another wild guess why ppl love the Russian site so much.
So yeah, if I ever meet the guys from Social Distortion (which is very possible since I cruise bars in LA a lot) I'll buy them a beer or 5. But don't you dare expect me to cry for them Argentina. I sitting here with a crappy new haircut in "business casual" looking at an hour+ commute home to an apartment. Let them bear the brunt of the industry's greed.
In my opinion, DRM should create more value to the paying customers. If it soley exists to assure labels of earnings, it won't stop people from going the path of least resistance.
Need a color? Try 100 random colors
"I would consider myself a smart person, and I find iTunes perfectly convenient for my needs"
Dumb people are always the last to understand how dumb they are.
Sorry dude.
I will be pirating my music, I love in canada.
But to help my morality, I will be sending $1 to every musician for each song that I have of theirs.
Screw riaa and the industry.. =)
Now if I could only get a mailing address for my favorite bands.
"A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.'" - DNA
I agree with pretty much everything you've just said.
The only credit I give to this project is the credit that Michael Robertson can cause a big enough stir to give it a chance of being noticed.
You're right about the labels demanding DRM. I think the only true way to escape it is to get the artists to migrate away from the labels.
They can obviously have more freedom without them. The only obstacles are exposure and money. Those are pretty much intertwined. Get those up to par and it will work.
It's gotta start somewhere.
How can it be a flat fee if you get 50 MP3's?
No, son. At one time, emusic gave you unlimited MP3's for $15/month.
Then they were bought out and now they charge big money for songs nobody has heard of.
That was okay before; hell, you could try something and if you liked it, you ended up buying more from that artists.
But when you pay per song, that song better be a freaking #1 hit or it ain't worth anything.
You may have a sense of humour, but there is nothing humourous about you Mac users drinking that Kool Aid. All that does is promoting and endorsing DRM systems, and all for your own petty selfish reasons. Even worse are those that actively promote this as a good thing.
Yes, I know some of you think this is as good as it will get, and lots other think Apple can do no wrong. But in reality, it could be much better, but it won't unless we all, including you people, stop being so damn shortsighted. History has proven this in numerous cases. It has also shown that a few selfish lazy people can ruin it for everyone including themselves.
The world can be changed, but it must be done together. Stop being so selfish. Help make a better world instead. And this is not only about DRM music, its about the whole enchilada.
For what's it's worth, most of us Clear Channel programmers would love to have deep, eclectic playlists loaded with interesting songs and artists.
The problem is that not enough people would listen to our stations for us to keep the lights on.
We're not force-feeding anything. Our short playlists are dictated by the market, and we spend million each year researching the musical tastes of our various target audiences.
While people bitch and wail about short playlists, the fact is that when we exercise poor music discipline, our ratings generally decline. Since commercial broadcasting is still predicated on a free radio, advertiser-subsidized model, low rated stations go away pretty quickly. We're a publicly held company, and have to return value to the stockholders (this could mean you).
We know tight playlists aren't for everyone, but they're for *most* people. Amazing as it may seem, radio listeners actually like hearing their favorites on a regular basis. Adults, in particular, punch out more often than not when something new comes on -- no matter how good it is.
Real music enthusiasts with well-developed tastes have a lot of options open to them these days, if they don't mind paying for them. Hell, I own an iPod, too. But free radio is still out there, playing the hits, ready whenever you need a pop fix or breaking news.
Okay, flame away. But that's the deal.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
That, and not a, you know, moron.
No, just a cynic.
And just because you add copyright infringement at the end of a list of other types of thievery does not by fiat make it a form of thievery. That's just rhetorical parallelism. And calling an argument "shit" to short circuit its use also does not, in fact, actually render it shit.
Copyright infringement is exactly what it says: Infringing on somebody's exclusive right to distribute something, namely by distributing it for them. Even under the most conservative reading the only thing you're "robbing" them of is control, and, theoretically, the value of their product. And the latter is a dicey claim at best.
More intelligent debate is to be had on whether producers of information ought to have this exclusive distribution "right" or not--and NOT whether infringing on it is stealing. Because, quite simply, it's not.
i also would like to love in canada. r u single? pls send photo
At least my complaints are designed to be productive and effect change. Your complaint seems designed to tell people to shut up and maintain a forcefed status quo.
DRM does upset me "that much", and my solution is simply to not provide any funding to companies who have anything to do with it. I also talk about it with people who will listen. ("Complain", if you will.)
Your "solution" won't work. First, the potential legal ramifications are no better than for downloading the file illegally in the first place. Second, the file quality won't be as good. Third, and most important, you're trying to correct a symptom, rather than the problem.
To specify the problem: We have a right to use and copy this information for our own use as we see fit and this right has been taken away from us by dubious means. An end run has been made around my rights for no reason and I have a problem with it.
If you don't want to hear that, okay, but do me a favor and stop trying to invalidate my point of view by implying that I only complain because I "always find something to complain about".
I gotta say I agree with you, too.
But even in a DRMless world, there are going to be some "fat cats", as it were. Even if the labels are toppled, in a manner of speaking, there will still be some groups that are the "best" to be associated with - for exposure and money. The people who have the best connections, the biggest website, the hottest PR folks (anything that penetrates the mainstream will have amazing PR). And all over again, it repeats: it won't be an even playing field, and never will be. And once the groups that give the best centralized exposure (which translates into money) - the ones who rise to the top, competitively, which means they'll have some folks with good business sense - get big enough, they might be looking for ways to stop people from stealing their shit too.
I'm not sure property without locks and keys - and penalties for breaking them - can even survive (at above some very basic level, and certainly not as a market leader) in a free market system, and it may in fact be fundamentally incompatible.
At a very basic level, I guess you could say this is "capitalism" vs "socialism" - again, not using either of those terms pejoratively - and the the disparity between those positions is dramatic. Perhaps grassroots efforts can at least shed light on the truth of content protection and DRM: it can ALWAYS be broken by pirates, and it ALWAYS hurts honest customers.
There already is a service that offers DRM-free mp3 music... and it has a pretty extensive catalog... it's emusic. No freakin' Britney Spears on this service. Although you might not find it up to snuff unless you're heavily into indie and obscure music or if you've got a sense of adventure.
The only way a service will compete with Apples dominance of the online music market (mindshare) is via Brand and Marketing.
Its a red herring - if a competing service starts eating significantly into Apples market share on the basis of not using DRM, Apple will simply shrug and do the same.
Until a competing company is cooler or offers a significantly better service than Apple, they will not have any real effect on Apples dominance.
I suppose it works for people who want everything to be free (as in beer.) Personally, I don't mind paying people for their efforts, just as I would be paid for mine.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
allofmp3.com already does this. Encoding in ogg vorbis, flac, aac, wma and of course mp3 to name a few...
300,000+ songs and a cheap price to boot. They also accept paypal.
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
If you support a bad system instead of taking a stand, just so you can get your music (or support your precious Apple, whichever it is), then you are selfish.
An unselfish act in this case would be to not support *any* DRM system, and this way, help sending a message that this is not OK. You probably think it makes no difference, and it won't as long as you think that way.
Or is it just that it's Apple? I would hope not. That would really be crappy. Especially as they are approaching monopoly on this one, with their own format, iTunes lock-in, DRM an dso on. Or is that only bad when it's MS?
And yes, you can still do the right thing and pay for your music. Just don't buy it with DRM. For what would be obvious reasons to all but the fanboys apparently.
I will pay Apple $2.00 a song to get non-DRM'ed music. Think they will go for it?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137646&cid=115 13960
5 15134
5 16848
You're depriving the painter of the possibility of his work (or even duplicates of it) having been purchased by taking it upon yourself to create/obtain duplicates that the creator has not been paid for, either for yourself, or others.
You're stealing from him, plain and simple. "Legally" stealing? Perhaps not. But that's a semantic debate. Saying it's "copyright infringement" and not "stealing" makes you feel like you're not the two-bit thief that you clearly are. And anyone who makes that argument is clearly feeling guilty.
Of course, you've got some tired rationalization for that, as well, I'm sure.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137646&cid=11
Let's take this argument out to absurdity. Which I feel is appropriate, since you already have.
Whether or not I have a copy of the painting or song does not affect the artist/singer unless I could afford to buy it, in which case I would have done so. It only affects me. So I don't think it's wrong of me to copy it.
How do you figure that it only affects you? Where is your incentive to better your financial situation and make more money, so you can afford the things you want - which you claim you would buy if you had the money? Inherent in that is educating yourself, making yourself a better and more productive member of society, a semblance of ambition, and incentive to do more. If everything could be gotten for free, then where's your incentive to do anything? And then, the logical follow-on question is: where is ANYONE'S incentive to do anything?
Luckily, there are still honest people in the world. That's apparently the difference: some people feel obligated to pay for the work and effort of others within the bounds of the laws that society has collectively set up; others feel that it's okay to take from others with no compensation, and manufacture arguments designed to rationalize it, rather than thinking, "Hm, wouldn't it be nice to {improve my lot in life | work more hours | work toward a better job | make myself more desirable in the marketplace | etc.} so that I can reward myself with the things I want?"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137646&cid=11
I don't recall being asked for my input. Who set up these bounds again? It wasn't society.
Wha? In this crazy society we live in (assuming you're in the US), we have something called representative democracy and another wacky concept known strangely s rule of law. As nutty as it sounds, the constituent elements that make up our society collectively decide on laws that govern our interaction with one another. Not everyone may agree with the fundamentals of every possible law, but we still collectively decide as a society to obey them, so we can actually live in some semblance of civility.In-sane!
There is a finite amount of wealth to go around.
Now I know you really don't know what you're talking about. This is not a zero sum game, and wealth is most definitely not finite. If you want to talk about people who are worth "100 times" as much as someone else, you're not talking about that tired old "one percent" the liberals always trumpet about. You're talking about the top 0.1% or 0.01%, depending on who you're comparing to. Why are you concerned with the fabulously wealthy? On top of that, that isn't what this discussion is about at all. If you don't believe that you can (or even want to) better yourself, you'd probably be perfect in socialism: the endless struggle for the lowest common denominator!
Nice Robin Hood argument though: the classic "because they have more, it's ok to steal from them". Nice. It's good to see plainly where you're coming from, though. Thanks.
Im not really fed up with iTunes. Ive got a lot of high quality music videos i pulled off for free. Some songs that came with a pay pal account. Some that were handed out free each week. Some more I traded for my friends pepsi caps. Ben&Jerry's gave me a few more. I think i also might have bought a song or two at some point. And none of them are DRM'd. Hymn is pretty damn easy to use. Its a lot less trouble than driving to a record store and then having to rip the cd once ive paid for it.
Honestly, it doesnt really bother me to pay $1/track for songs every once in a while, but I haven't got any space on my 40GB iPod (none of which, might I add, came from kazaa, napster, or any other 'illicit' download service), so I'm not in dire need of more music at the moment.
The summary mentioned iTunes. I mentioned it once, the context that no one is forcing you to use it. Where did I mention Apple or Macs?
Oh, what's that? I didn't? Ok, fuck off then.
But you managed to mention it 7 times in your post. Hmm. AND take time out of your day to call a post "Apple fanboyism" that has nothing to do with Apple. Wow, the smart one you are!
Disclaimer: I don't mind paying money for good songs at all. I use JHymn to play songs on other platforms for which iTunes is not available. JHymn works beautifully for this purpose.
Those of us with a more eclectic taste in music enjoy downloading albums from BLEEP. They serve up content in decent bitrate MP3, no DRM. You can pay with PayPal.
I really don't have much ethical issues with downloading bootlegged music, however, $10 is well worth it for instant-gratification. I don't have to search P2P networks, wait in queues, etc. I just find something I like, and grab the whole album at high speed.
Audio Lunch Box Here
MP3 and OGG, NO DRM!!!!!
It has been out for a while you know.
Have a good one.
===== "Every head is a different world so don't invade mine you FREAK!" smartSAGA said
I wish it wasn't Robertson that was at the head of all of this, because I would always like a non-DRM music service to succeed. But Robertson got to where he is (insanely rich) by stepping on everyone else back in the late 90s. For example, he did things like stealing tons of bandwidth from a university FTP search project (which, at the time, was at ftpsearch.ntnu.no) and putting it on his "filez.com" site to sell advertising there, never giving any credit to the people who created the search. He also squatted audiograbber.com (Audiograbber being the name of a now well-known CD ripping program... at the time it was still up and coming) and for a long time refused to sell it to the creator of the software, instead directing it to MP3.com where he was advertising for competing programs. I could go on and on. He's just an ass who exploits people. I ran one of the larger MP3 sites around the time when MP3.com was still new (when it was just a garbage list of software, without any real content of its own), and so I managed to talk to him a few times back then. When I took my site down he was waiting like a vulture to buy it up and forward it to MP3.com, but I wouldn't sell...
I hate to break it to you, but I'm not much of an Apple fan. I own a PC, I'm running Redmond's best, I don't own an iPod, and I don't use iTunes.
My feeling is, though, that they've done a great thing. What exactly? Well, they've taken the music out of the hands of corporations like WalMart (who will censor it, and then they'll sell it to me for $15), and they've made it accessible to the masses. My parents are capable of using iTunes, and that's saying a lot.
People are willing to disregard all of this because they feel entitled to be able to copy it, and share it, and do whatever they want with it -- legal or not. Granted, DRM might stifle a lot of legal activity, but whatever. You get what you pay for.
I'm a sci-fi vegan: I don't want the aliens to think we have as much right to live as the fried chickens we eat.
Does anyone remember the slashdot story that stated that programmers tended to be metalheads? If that's true, all these guys have to do is license the Nuclear Blast label (and maybe InsideOut) and they've got the Slashdot/programmer crowd, which is pretty much 90% of the people that care.
Is there any MP3 servers that let you buy cheap, DRM free MP3s, that has both a large selection and lets you pay for them individually instead of a montly fee?
lol: You see no door there!
Why did you post anonymously, Admiral Ackbar?
After reading this post I decided to bite the bullet and sign up at allofmp3.com. I did a little research on them and they seemed legit as far as not scamming people's credit card info. I attempted to add money to my account using my Visa Platinum but kept getting the message:
"Authorization failed"
Knowing full well that this shouldn't be happening, I decided to call my credit card company. I got an automated system that explained to me my last five charges and the most current was an attempt to charge my card with $5.00. This charge was denied and my account was not charged. I'll call and speak with someone tomorrow, but it seems that my bank (Wachovia) is blocking charges from cyberplat.com (or possibly any Russian based company). I thought it was interesting, and was actually pleased that my credit card denied the charge even though it was a legitimate one.
I can't speak for the generic "people" you refer to, but I *can* and will speak for myself.
I don't think "copyright infringement" has anything at all to do with "sticking it to the evil, blood-sucking, etc. etc. corporations" and that making it "right" vs. "wrong".
What I *do* think is that quite simply, stealing refers to taking possession of tangible property without permission. Copyright infingement is NOT stealing in any strict sense, because it's about the "unauthorized" duplication of intellectual property (typically intangible).
When you steal, you deprive someone of the item in order to re-locate it physically in your presence. When you infringe a copyright, no such thing happens. Any purchased media the original works were stored on remains in the possession of whoever had it to begin with. You simply made a "clone" of it using other media.
In fact, "copyright infringement" is all about an entirely different crime -- one of breaking a contract. IMHO, this very much enters the territory of being subject to interpretation. If, say, you strike up a business deal with a partner and agree to sign a contract with him/her covering it - what about unreasonable or unjust language hidden deep within it that you didn't notice before you signed? Strictly speaking, you'd just be "out of luck" since you signed it. But we all know it's not really this way in all cases. Laws must be *interpreted*, which is the job of the courts, judges and juries. It could very well be decided that the language wasn't legally binding, so you're "off the hook".
So it is with software too. Criminal prosecution of copyright violations should be reserved for the counterfeiters, who quite clearly are cheating the people who believed they were really paying for the original product, and instead got a knock-off.
Anything else, I'd say, is potentially something to deal with on a civil basis - but probably little else. If you "pirate" an application instead of buying it, you're cloning the bits that make up the program - but you're not getting the rest of the package. (No free updates, support from the vendor, printed manuals, guarantees of replacement of defective media, and so on.) Those are really the things that should make software purchases worthwhile anyway.
At the standard rate it works out to $0.25 per song. Much better than anywhere else that's legal.
I've been a member for over two years. It's great. Once you realize that just because the major studios christen a song #1 doesn't make it good and start looking at some of the GREAT music that independent labels put out you see what a rip off the other places are.
BLEEP.COM was one of the first on the scene. They now have a lot more record labels besides Warp.
you think all artist have signed bad deals?
you think, say, pat metheny has a shitty deal?
i think more like somebody like that is in complete complete control of what how much and when it comes out on ITMS.
only dirtball can't play a note flash in the pan punk pop bands need to sign those (then complain) because all they want is fame and glory and their eyes are crossed and glazed with, yes, $$ signs and naked chicks. mb they ought to get a decent education first so they know what the fsck they're signing! serves them right.
I understand the need for ratings, as well as the mentality of radio listeners (precisely why I don't listen to radio). The problem is, they must have heard their favorite songs for the first time somewhere, and generally it's the radio. So, answer me this: When an artist that obviously lacks any talent or musical inspiration, and is quite clearly a manufactured pop star (Ashlee Simpson, Britney Spears, etc.) starts making records, WHY DO YOU PLAY THEM? Once people hear them, they'll want to hear it again, because it was played on the radio...
Major radio (and media at large, MTV is just as responsible) outlets are just as responsible for their artists tastes, as their artists tastes are for their playlists. It's a sickening cycle, but this crap is introduced to the public by the media outlets, not by people buying CD's on a whim and then requesting it on the radio.
I'm such an airhead sometimes. The following line:
Major radio (and media at large, MTV is just as responsible) outlets are just as responsible for their artists tastes, as their artists tastes are for their playlists.
Should read:
Major radio (and media at large, MTV is just as responsible) outlets are just as responsible for their listeners tastes, as their listeners tastes are for their playlists.
Speaking of, why the hell doesn't slashdot let you edit your comments like every other message board!!?!?!
You just described why I broke up with my last girlfriend.
I keep seeing people saying things like iTunes does harm because they (and the RIAA) take the lion's share of profit from each song sold.
So? Every day I work, try to produce something useful, and at the end of two weeks I get paid for that work. That's it. I don't continue to get royalties for my effort, I just get paid once. Why is it that musicians expect to get paid forever for something that took them a matter of weeks or months to produce? Isn't getting paid a reasonable return for the effort enough? Is a musician's effort really worth so much more than mine (or that of a waitress or a doctor?) Yes, obviously the music continues to be worth something since it can be sold over and over again, raking in millions of dollars. But that is really only possible because of the huge industry that the RIAA has put together. Before the music industry existed the idea of getting rich from being a musicain was crazy.
Now with the Internet it is possible to get your music out to millions of people without the music industry. Should musicians still expect to bring in the same money they could with the music industry behind them, or should they finally realize the money was there *because* of the music industry?
There were "legal guidelines" which governed slavery, too. But we got rid of those bad laws, didn't we?
I agree with the poster who said those who create artificial shortages are the thieves.
Schroeder, your head is so far up your ass, it's come back up out through your neck again. When I legally obtain content, then for me, copying that content is, and has always been, part of the content. Wrap your head around that idea. My copying is perfectly legal and ethical, and in fact furthers my enjoyment of whatever work it is. The content would be incomplete and unsatisfying if I couldn't copy it.
You might look at the conduct of the businesses you are defending, and then want to rethink your own ethics.
"Either they buy you out, sue you into oblivion, or both (think mp3.com)."
.agrippa.
Being as someone that worked for MP3.com since almost its beginning, I think I'm ok in saying the following:
1. Beam-it was a legal crapshoot, we knew this, and we lost. The day it was announced at a company meeting almost everyone knew we were going to get the shit sued out of us for doing it. There was a small legal gray area in copyright law Michael Robertson tried to exploit.
2. If not for losing hundreds of millions of dollars on lawyers/fines for doing Beam-it, MP3.com would probably still be in business today.
MP3.com's own stupidity lead to its downfall, not the RIAA. In fact, in an alternate universe, its probably still serving up Big Poo Generator while slowly burning through $400 million in IPO money.
The reason why Apple's setup worked so gosh-dern well is that they had all of their ducks in a row, as has every other label-sanctioned music service. The fact that he's going to launch this thing without even talking to them makes the promise of his service sound a little foolhardy. He had this same problem with MP3.com, remember; he had no way to control the quality of the artists.
Labels, love them or no (I certainly don't), tend to at the very least fliter out the amateurs and guys covering Chic songs with a mandolin and an egg shaker, so that you can actually hear someone with actual (or inflated) talent. The filter usually works as a loss to the customer, because the close-but-no-cigar artists are the ones that get filtered most unfairly. But in this case, the filter's a benefit -- it cuts out the armchair Garageband players.
I could launch a service like this tomorrow. Just give me MS Frontpage, a couple MP3s from that album Bronson Pinchot did back in 1988 at the height of his "Perfect Strangers" fame years, a streaming shoutcast link and a link to Paypal, and I can also I manage to successfully do everything that Michael Richardson is promising in this article. But do i have any connections? Nope.
In my scenario, the business plan fails, and pinchotTunes goes kaput in three weeks, but Bronson Pinchot has a second wind of fame as a result.
You know, if you were coming with your A game, Michael, I'd applaud you, but I keep seeing B- and C+ games out of your various companies.
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
I believe it differs morally from stealing in that no one actually looses anything. RIAA argues loss of sale, but most people can see downloads often are not replacing a sale anyway (particularly when you see the deographics of the people they've sued.)
I think that our culture is used to media being free, Radio and Television (well sat/cable but music is more like PPV) cost nothing, CDs & books can be borrowed, etc.
This makes me think of an interesting p2p system. Stream the audio, allow no saving and never have the number of listeners exceed the number of peers available with that song. In essence you'd be loaning the use to 'a friend'. Wonder if this is already out there.
first off, it looks like this is STILL some crappy service a la itunes:
.hopesfall. Hot Water Music Grade ...the list goes on and on, and I don't really like a lot of different music. They give you zip file downloads of whole cds, with included cover art...ogg files on a lot of cds...
"MP3tunes will use a service or tool called 'MP3beamer', which Robertson said would reconcile the need to store music in a centralized file store with the ability to play back the music anywhere, on any device. He declined to comment further."
Store music in a centralized file store? No, thanks. Give me audiolunchbox over an "mp3beamer" any day. I <3 192kbit mp3 downloads where the artists actually get paid.
not to mention that audiolunchbox actually has GOOD artists instead of mainstream drivel...a few I like: Interpol Noise Ratchet The Anniversary
anyway, something to check out. I'm not a shill for ALB, just a fan.
They broke Hymn/JHymn cracked songs in iTunes 4.5, 4.6, 4.7.1, etc.. Okay, so Hymn was always quickly updated to fix the problem, but the point is that they have attempted to stop this sort of thing before.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The point about allofmp3.com is that in Russia, copyright piracy is not really prosecuted. Go to a Russian market, and you will see tons of pirated software, music CDs, videogames and so on. The authorities have other problems on their minds, corruption is rampant and nobody gives a rat's ass about western copyright.
If you think Russian laws are good, move to Russia and give your US citizenship to some Russki who wants to get out.
The Russians are selling you the right to download tracks for which they have no license to distribute internationally. In Russia, they are taking advantage of some broadcasting legal loophole that is quasi legal enough to avoid prosecution or lawsuits, but the fact is, they have no rights (from the companies that own the top40 music you download from them) to distribute their warez to you in the US or UK or wherever.
So, you are paying them to get something you have no license for, instead of downloading it for free from a warez site. That's like paying some schmuck for a copy of their Photoshop instead of downloading it and finding a license you can steal for free. The middleman profits, but how do you? You own nothing, have still stolen what you got from the real owner (and know it), so you aren't even assuaging your own conscience.
At least when you buy stolen goods on the corner, you are gaining something you probably coulnd't have stolen yourself. By paying the Russians to distribute unlicensed songs, you are just being an idiot in addition to being a thief.
Great logic all around.
Now, we all love our iPods, etc. etc. But keep this in mind:
The artists are still being screwed, even if it's behind a lickable interface.
Yours is one of the better defenses of the anti-DRM position against the club-handed assertion that people should just shut up and enjoy iTMS. Well done.
Downloads should be as cheap as possible, simply because distribution is so easy, in order to get any given artist's work exposed to as great an audience as possible. I'm prepared to pay for good-quality, well-tagged downloads, organised the way I want them (which is exactly what AllofMP3 does, bar creating playlists), but I'm not going to pay as much as I would for a CD. If I get a CD, I can rip it to any format I like, play it on any device I like, and I get something _physical_ (a box, a shiny bit of plastic, and some cover art) which I still think is important. (But maybe I'm getting old.)
then you might as well get it from P2P.
Stealing is bad
Sharing is good
----------------------
Sharing is not stealing
But at least I have choice now- Download from gnutella 2 and give to friends, pay and download from ITMS, break DRM, give to friends, or pay and download from MP3tunes.com, then give to friends (30 seconds faster).*
:P.
Seriously though, whist I probably shall buy something from the store (if I can get there before the lawyers do), simply so as to protest about DRM. I don't really want to do what I've described above (see below disclaimer), but if anyone did, they could. Breaking iTunes's DRM is not difficult- see previous slashdot stories - and I am legally allowed to break it, under fair use law.
DRM does nothing to stop dedicated music sharers, other than hinder them; in just the same way that when I try and make a back-up copy of a game I've bought, and discover it's "protected", it only takes me about 30 seconds longer.
I'm very glad that this new service will come into existence, but I'd really rather the RIAA realised that DRM does nothing other than to hamper those with knowledge, and make those without re-download a DRM free version, as I know happening once or twice.
Disclaimer: The above post was for humour and/or illustration purposes only. I don't do any of the above. I'm 15. I'm British. Sue me
My UID is prime. Is yours?
"If you're really an "audiophile", then you don't get your music in digital form"
Is that available anymore? LP's are gone, and I don't have a turntable.
How can I get music stored in analog these days?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
If we were talking Linux, it would be "Fanboy". But we're talking Apple, so its more correct to say "fanboi".
Note that "fanboi" is never capitalized.
Now I know you really don't know what you're talking about. This is not a zero sum game, and wealth is most definitely not finite.
How is wealth measured exactly? Are you saying there is an infinite amount of silver and gold? Or an infinite amount of paper? How about oil, coal, cattle, fish, automobiles, wood, paper, plastic, land? Plays, novels, music, art, are wonderful stuff, and as long as people are alive, they will have value --- but only inasmuch as they have a physical presence in the form of a book or a cd, or are performed live.
In the end, there are two types of material -- inorganic (metals) and organic (living stuff). Both of these are in finite supply. You are the one who really doesn't know what you are talking about.
"And XM is owned, in part, by Clear Channel"
Check again. CC sold off most of their XM holdings. They own a tiny amount only.
"But so do sales and live performance, TV, MTV, club play, and word of mouth."
Given that most adults don't go to live performances, or clubs, or watch MTV, and probably don't watch the kind of that would feed the interest, where is "interest" generated?
Or is the teen market driving the adult market?
"Why is it that musicians expect to get paid forever for something that took them a matter of weeks or months to produce? "
Why is that more insightful than:
Why is it that record companies expect to get paid forever for something that took them a matter of weeks or months to produce?
Seriously, why is the artist the one who's being the jerk here?
Maybe I don't get out enough, but I don't know anyone who is "fed up" with the DRM on iTunes. To be "fed up" implies that you've used it and dealt with it for long enough that you just can't take it any more. The only people I hear with big gripes about iTunes' DRM are people who never used it in the first place for that reason. They don't count. The people who actually buy music from iTunes are generally satisfied customers, as far as I can tell.
Maybe they meant "fed up with the fact that they can't find legal music to download without DRM".
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
And cheap. 2 Cents a meg.
MP3 at any bitrate for 2 cents a meg. give em a try!
http://www.allofmp3.com
Note: This is NOT an advertisement. Just a very happy customer passing on a recommendation.
"Wealth" is NOT a zero sum game. If you think that any gains by someone who is wealthy equals a one-to-one decrease somewhere else, you are sadly, sadly, sadly mistaken. Yes, there are a finite amount of physical objects on earth. A finite amount of atoms in the universe. What's your point? You've demonstrated the height of utter, laughable ignorance if you believe for a second that wealth is zero sum, or that in order for the wealthy to become wealthier, they have to directly take from somewhere else (e.g., the "poor"). Perhaps you haven't grasped the concepts of growing economies that have been clearly demonstrated ad nauseum the world over. If you want to be disagreeable, sure, "wealth" can always be tied back in some way, shape, or form, to a physical object - or can it? Today, we consider information and intangibles a commodity. We even pay for them. (Well, at least some of us do.) How is that possible?! Buying an idea? Paying for services? In-sane! Take a macroeconomics course or something and stop lapping up the shit that your socialist friends are spewing from every orifice.
Warp records already embraces no DRM. Their online store www.bleep.com provides MP3s at 192kps with (admittedly small) cover art. A full CD is $10.
Warp is not a huge label, nor is their music to everyones tastes, but it is a good start.
Personally I would like to see the cost be a little lower, considering that there is no physical distribution costs, but it is low enough that I would pay for a CD's worth of music, rather than get it from other sources.
sounds like it still has some drm to it just it has the code on the server?
>>I think the only true way to escape it is to get the artists to migrate away from the labels. Not gonna happen - ever. The labels provide money for new music equipment, money up front for them to make their music, money for sound editors and recorders, money for promotions etc etc. Getting recognized and contracted with a label or agent is the goal of every musician just like it is a high school and college football player to get recognized by a recruiter.
I should correct
during a party or gathering on private property
to read
during a party or gathering in a private residence
as that was the intent of my statement.
> I'm not sure property without locks and keys - and penalties for breaking them -
> can even survive (at above some very basic level, and certainly not as a market
> leader) in a free market system, and it may in fact be fundamentally
> incompatible.
Bingo.
What happens when lock and key is impossible, and the item to protect is there to grab? People will take. Punishment will ensue. The cycle will get tiresome. The music industry will die. Garage bands and idol pursuits will be the domain of the truly obsessed/possessed. Popular music will retreat into museum exhibits. In 150 years, Greenwich village blue bloods will pay to watch a diva perform "Hit Me Baby One More Time" in E minor and look down their noses at anyone who didn't have the benefit of a classical education detailin the idiosyncracies of the 21th century Plastique era.
solved by more sites like http:\\www.AllofMp3.com The user gets whatever encoding in whatever bitrate all in under 30 seconds of finding the song for pennies per song. If this were common practice there would be no need for p2p music swapping. People could get the music they want so cheap that the idea of sharing just wouldn't seem worth it anymore.
I told you what you can do about it. Personally, I've just seen to it that music I buy (and I do buy it) aren't laden with DRM. I wish I wasn't so lazy, otherwise I'd also start mailing companies I don't buy from and tell them why.
In short, I will never use iTunes as long as it uses DRM. That is what you can do about it. Since you ask. Since you think it sucks.
You can call it preaching all you like, that doesn't bother me. Lots of great men who accomplished great things, and got others to follow these causes were preachers (though I don't personally like religion as such). So if I'm a preacher, hear my sermon: Do not buy music with DRM. It will help create a better world in one small instance.
Amen.
It's actaully kinda murky. I guess it depends on how big the party or gathering was in your private resisdence and whether there was any kind of compensation.
Quoth The Law (section 110)
The parts I bold here show that parties where you play music may not be legal if the invites say "bring beer and chips". It's kind of irrelevant how private the property or residence. You could always play a CD for your family, or while others are in earshot because then you have the intent defense. However, you could have a private party, and recieve compensation for public performance of copyrighted works (again like in a previous post) if it was 'educational' (the code talks about face to face teaching situations, you might like reading it). Also note the religious and cheritable exemption. This allows for copyrighted music (and plays, covered in a different section) to be performed as part of church services whitout being infringement.
Anyhow. I hope this has shown just how ridiculous that copyright law in the U.S. has gotten. Some CD cases will even claim rights to performance and what not, so for a little funny extra cirricular, read all the fine print on some of your more popular CDs and see what gold you can find.
I guess I should note that IANAL and this is not legal advice.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
That's not necessairly true. Many bands have no ambition past signing to one of the indie mid-majors. I can't imagine too many of the bands on matador or subpop leaving for a major. Those labels are large enough to provide everything the band needs but still fairly small and outside the RIAA.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Idiot mods, I swear.
Ever been in the music industry? Ever been in a full time working band?
There are a LOT of bands out there that say "oh, we're better than $GROUP and they're on a label. it's so unfair" when the reality is, they're not better. They just think they are.
Not all bands are great bands and so label worthy. Sorry. It's just reality.